INSIGHT
5757 - #27
The Demand of Effort
Lo
b'shamayim hi, "and it is no longer in the
heavens,"1. as the Talmudic source for one of the most
significant halachic principles -- that,
post-Sinai, we are not to consult the Divine in matters
of halachic determination but rather Halacha
is to exist in the realm of human thought,2. -- is one of the most famous sayings in the
Torah. Yet, in the context of the Torah text, this phrase
is coupled with another - "and it is not beyond the
sea."3. Within its simple meaning, these verses
declare that Torah observance4. is within human grasp, neither,
figuratively, "in the sky" or "beyond the
sea". As, though, a much deeper understanding of the
phrase lo b'shamayim hi is deduced, we may wonder
if a parallel deeper understanding of the phrase v'lo
m'ever l'yam is also contemplated.
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch,
indeed, presents such an interpretation. He explains that
the reference to the heavens is in response to the
individual who may claim that Torah observance is
impossible because there is no-one with the supernatural
abilities to consult G-d and thus determine His True
Will. To such a person, we respond lo b'shamayim hi,
that the Revelation at Sinai was complete and now the
Torah is in the hands of the human mind to determine its
true meaning. V'lo m'ever l'yam, similarly, is in
response to the individual who argues that observance and
any understanding of Torah is infeasible unless we gain a
full comprehension of its necessarily foreign
frame of reference, context and environment - tasks
which, figuratively, would demand of us to search to the
other side of the globe. Torah is accessible from all
perspectives. To Rabbi Hirsch, it is to the
epistemological framework of Torah that both these verses
are referring.
The context of the verses actually seem to
be pointing to a difficulty with the accessibility of the
goal and not with the strenuousness of the task. The
verse does not declare that the Torah is not in the
heavens and therefore we need not be afraid of the effort
necessary to reach the heavens. The verse states that
since the Torah is not in the heavens, we need not be
concerned with finding someone with the ability to reach
the heavens. The difficulty with a Torah "in the
heavens" is not that it would demand too much effort
to grasp it but rather that it would be inherently very
difficult to achieve.5. Thus Rabbi Hirsch understands these verses
as informing us that the Torah task is not beyond us but,
rather, is accessible to the human mind. As to the
challenge of the goal, though, it, in fact, does demand
effort.
T.B. Eruvin 55a actually presents
these verses as proofs that the Torah does demand effort.
In declaring that the Torah is not "in the heavens
or beyond the sea", we are spared the difficult task
of reaching "for the heavens" to grasp it --
but if the Torah would have had demanded that we indeed
did have to go "to the heavens", we would have
had to make that effort. Yet, with this statement, is
Torah not exempting us from this effort? Perhaps the
Torah could have demanded effort but with these
statements, is the Torah not telling us that Torah
observance is not so difficult that it should demand
effort? Rashi,6. though, explains the gemara as proof
that effort is, in fact, necessary for Torah. The essence
of the gemara's statement must lie in that the
concern was the perceived impossibility of the task, not
the effort that would have to be exerted in the
acquisition of Torah. The fact is that the
Torah does not raise as the concern that the
task is too strenuous; this only indicates that effort
and hard work indeed are part of Torah.
The very challenges of lo b'shamayim hi
and v'lo m'ever l'yam actually indicate this
concept. In one respect, these statements present
comfort; the Torah is informing us that the task before
us is within our grasp. Yet, these statements also
represent a challenge to us; it is an attainable goal so
you are expected to exert the effort necessary to achieve
this objective. This understanding actually further
explains the subsequent analysis of these verses in T.B.
Eruvin 55a, The gemara continues, through midrashic
analysis, to present views that indicate that these
verses are declaring that Torah is not attainable by one
who is haughty.7. Is there a connection between this midrashic
insight and the simple presentation of the verse? Who is,
in fact, the one that declares a task too difficult? One
is the lazy individual; another is the one who is lacking
any self-esteem so that any task is too difficult. The gemara,
though, is telling us that it is usually haughtiness that
makes us declare a task too difficult.
To attempt a goal must necessitate the
realization that we, at present, are lacking the goal. To
strive for more money means we are lacking this money. To
strive for Torah must also mean that we lack Torah. To
strive to be more righteous must mean that we are lacking
this level of righteousness. How do we look at this lack?
If the lack is attainable, then I must accept my
deficiency and strive for this goal. The haughty
individual, unable to accept a personal deficiency,
declares, though, that the task is not attainable for any
human being. His/her lack, therefore, is not a personal
deficiency as he/she is all that a human being could
possibly be. The one who cannot perceive personal
weakness also cannot attain the Torah.
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes
1.Devarim 30:12.
2. See
T.B. Baba Metzia 59b and Temura 16a. The
subject is actually a matter of great discussion and
debate. See further T.B. Yevamot 14a, Tosefot, Baba
Metzia 59b, d.h. lo b'shamayim hi and NISHMA
ISSUES, Number 4.
3. Devarim
30:13.
4. The
exact subject of these verses is actually a matter of
controversy with commentaries, such as Ramban, Devarim
30:11, presenting the view that the discussion
actually is focusing on teshuva. With the approach
of Rosh Hashanah, readers may wish to further
investigate this approach. In this regard, see also Sforno
and HaEmek Davar. Our discussion, though, will
assume that it is the general observance of Torah that is
the subject of these verses.
5. This
distinction is also alluded to in Siftei Chachamim,
Devarim 30:12, note 4.
6. Rashi,
T.B. Eruvin 55a, d.h. Haynu D'amar Rav Adimi.
7. One
is invited to further investigate this gemara to
ascertain the subtle distinctions in the variant
viewpoints.
Return to top
|